Yes . . . and with the two midrange drivers as well matched as can be found the LX521 will be an excellent test bed for demonstrating (or not) any audible differences in the various filters.
It could almost be a Photoshop opportunity. Note the lighting on the speakers.
Hi guys.
Sorry for little OT...
Just in case you don't know. You have same limitless option to mess-up with XO and phase with Rephase. Its great tool and its free. But either with UE or any other tool the price you pay is preringing in filter responses which SHOULD cancel itself with other from other driver. But does this really happen? And it is valid for whole polar pattern? It think that "subtractive & delay" with either analog or IIR is better approach to "linear phase".
I'm interested in other and especially John's view about this.
Sorry for little OT...
Just in case you don't know. You have same limitless option to mess-up with XO and phase with Rephase. Its great tool and its free. But either with UE or any other tool the price you pay is preringing in filter responses which SHOULD cancel itself with other from other driver. But does this really happen? And it is valid for whole polar pattern? It think that "subtractive & delay" with either analog or IIR is better approach to "linear phase".
I'm interested in other and especially John's view about this.
Subtractive delay stillhas a precursor, though not so much preringing. But you can not eliminat the low frequency GD with SD crossovers. That requires making the system linear phase and correcting for the GD associated with the low frequency cut off.
But let's not forget that SD filters only represent the acoustic target. It is unlikely that the filter required to make the driver acoustic output match the SD target can be generated with IIR. And lastly, let's not forget that IIR and FIR do not imply minimum phase or linear phase. FIR filters can be either.
Also, if you look at the response of a HP SD filter it can be decomposed into a minimum phase HP filter plus and all pass with some nonmnimum phase response. So the HP response is sort of a "rephase" of minimum phase HP response.
This would considerably degrade the audio. If want an analog sound, why not just record it in analog, do all post processing in analog, and then digitize the result. That is a whole lot cleaner of an approach, and is a whole lot less work. The result can be quite stunning. I still do this on occasion.
I personally have never seen anyone record in digital, then lay it down to tape, and then go back to digital just because of your bolded comment. Emulators eleminate the need to do this.
Well, coming from a music production background, rather than post, I've seen analogue used all kinds of ways. Prior to Bob Katz getting a Crane Song HED 192 many years ago(and now the Anamod), he used to take very digital or thin sounding mixes and drop them to his Studer/Ampex hybrid 1/2" machine and then back into Sonic Solutions. It did not degrade at all, but rather thickened up just a touch and added some character to rather flat sounding mixes. It was not often, because one has to weigh the pros of the tape with the cons of the additional D/A and A/D stages, but I did see it on numerous occasions.
Additionally, at Phat Planet, we have done plenty of projects where we track to the Studer, dump all tracks into Protools for editing and manipulation and then mix back to 1/2", OR track everything in Protools for budget and time crunch and THEN mix down to the 1/2" ATR102. There's plenty of ways to get a particular sound. Adding tape just about anywhere in the production stages can have benefits if that's the sound an engineer or producer is listening for.
Greg
I'm not so sure about that, but back in the early days of digital it sure had its benefits . . . the "brick wall" high frequency filtering (caused mostly by gap erasure) tamed the peaky condenser microphones of the day and was all but essential to avoid the ugly splatter of aliasing at the A/D conversion. Not a problem with the higher sample rates and better filters of today, but it was a real problem back then, and the early DD recordings sounded uniformly terrible compared to those captured on tape before conversion.
Not a fair quote. You skipped the last part....
You guys aren't getting what I'm saying. I used to be a high rez digital snob too, but there's a certain sound to a great analog machine like a Studer A-80/A-800 that you just do not get with high quality digital. It's not more accurate for sure, just different and sometimes that difference sounds nicer than the real thing. It's an effect. Not right or better, just different. If you could come hear some master tapes with me, you'd hear what I mean. When we do converter shoot-outs we like to compare the live board feed of a musician in real time to the conversion, but we also track to tape to see how that process sounds. Tape a certain character. That's what people are after.
Greg
Last edited:
Well, you learn something every day - and after all of these years I am still learning.
I come from both the production and post side of things. Maybe because I work mostly with film scores, classical, jazz, and Gospel recording and mixing(which never needed that kind of manipulation), I never needed to do this kind of process to get the desired effect I wanted. I carefully planned out the entire process, and any effects that I wanted to create I either recorded them, or added it in post.
The point was that 'normal' hifi speakers are being used in studios. That is what LX521 is propably aimed at, too.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Gotcha. But they have been used in studio's forever. I've use Dunlavy SC-V's in my studio for the last ten years. Those speakers in the picture are very widely used in studios.
posted today on SL website:
Q4 - I think eliminating the passive crossover and driving lower and upper midranges separately and from an active crossover of higher order might yield higher performance
A4 - Maybe, maybe not. I have not tried it. When I started the design I was looking for a midrange driver and baffle combination that would extend dipole behavior into the kHz frequency range and still allow for a 3-way design with a dipole woofer below 150 Hz. Furthermore I wanted a dipolar tweeter with wide vertical dispersion. I could not find a midrange driver that met my needs at low and high frequencies simultaneously. Thus the two chosen drivers. They have a wide frequency overlap, which is conducive to a first order crossover to gradually blend their acoustic contributions. In essence I view them as a single super-wide midrange. The smaller driver does not show signs of stress at its low end, nor does the larger driver show signs of harshness at its high end. The passive crossover brings with it the convenience of not having to redesign the ORION ASP printed circuit board and all that entails.
At some point in the future I might do it and add a first order (or higher?) crossover to make the LX521 a fully active 4-way monitor. But right now I am totally unmotivated, because I have no evidence of benefits and only of complications. For example, the frequency response due to the passive crossover is determined by the driver and network impedances and requires different midrange equalization with an active crossover. Also, there is no 10-pole Speakon connector available or a 5-conductor-pair speaker cable.
Q4 - I think eliminating the passive crossover and driving lower and upper midranges separately and from an active crossover of higher order might yield higher performance
A4 - Maybe, maybe not. I have not tried it. When I started the design I was looking for a midrange driver and baffle combination that would extend dipole behavior into the kHz frequency range and still allow for a 3-way design with a dipole woofer below 150 Hz. Furthermore I wanted a dipolar tweeter with wide vertical dispersion. I could not find a midrange driver that met my needs at low and high frequencies simultaneously. Thus the two chosen drivers. They have a wide frequency overlap, which is conducive to a first order crossover to gradually blend their acoustic contributions. In essence I view them as a single super-wide midrange. The smaller driver does not show signs of stress at its low end, nor does the larger driver show signs of harshness at its high end. The passive crossover brings with it the convenience of not having to redesign the ORION ASP printed circuit board and all that entails.
At some point in the future I might do it and add a first order (or higher?) crossover to make the LX521 a fully active 4-way monitor. But right now I am totally unmotivated, because I have no evidence of benefits and only of complications. For example, the frequency response due to the passive crossover is determined by the driver and network impedances and requires different midrange equalization with an active crossover. Also, there is no 10-pole Speakon connector available or a 5-conductor-pair speaker cable.
WOW!!! That all sounds very un-SL- like. To say he is totally unmotivated because he has no evidence.... Point being that you don't have evidence if you investigate. And "no Speakon connector..." So use two, one for the woofers and one for the panel.
This is the guy who played around with the "Waston" to try and make the stereo illusion better and now he is saying he isn't motivated? This is the guy who has designed 21 speakers searching for better sound. I certainly understand that in SL's case to go all analog, 4 way would require a redesigned circuit board with a real commitment to the product, but he could at least spring $300 for a miniDSP and play around to his hearts content to see if there is evidence. That really surprises me.
Also, the thing about changing the eq. I would agree that going active with the coupler could require such a change, but once the change is made the eq is pretty much independent of the order of the coupler, or, at least that has been my experience. I've put some comparisons of the un-equalized, coupled response for 1st 2nd and 4th order couplers at the bottom of my News page if you want to take a look.
Last edited:
It doesn't surprise me. Back in '99 I emailed him about a ..ahem, *narrow baffle* Phoenix design.
Yeah, no interest.
You never know what's going to "spark" a person's interest.. Took him what, half a decade to try a rear tweeter?
There are of course other examples as well, but he certainly isn't alone in this.. Uniform directivity (at least relativly speaking and in the treble region) was consistently expressed by Earl, no? Cuibono was doing what, when? ..and the Note?
Then there is that aesthetic thing.. Who knows what might happen a few years down the road.
John,
SL has had a miniDSP setup since before you or I.
I'm not sure how he utilizes it....maybe for development of analog equivalents...or maybe just for amusement. Anyways, I would imagine he's tested/characterized/fiddled with it and has a pretty good idea of its capabilities.
It's easy to second-guess people and wonder why they haven't done this or that. I suspect his first task in the morning is not to check DIYaudio and see what technical innovations John K. (or anyone else) is working on.
Cheers,
Dave.
SL has had a miniDSP setup since before you or I.
I'm not sure how he utilizes it....maybe for development of analog equivalents...or maybe just for amusement. Anyways, I would imagine he's tested/characterized/fiddled with it and has a pretty good idea of its capabilities.
It's easy to second-guess people and wonder why they haven't done this or that.
I suspect his first task in the morning is not to check DIYaudio and see what technical innovations John K. (or anyone else) is working on. Cheers,
Dave.
Guess you missed the fact that he'd done both years before you . . . "a ..ahem" . . . thought of the concepts.It doesn't surprise me. Back in '99 I emailed him about a ..ahem, *narrow baffle* Phoenix design.
Yeah, no interest.
You never know what's going to "spark" a person's interest.. Took him what, half a decade to try a rear tweeter?
Guess you missed the fact that he'd done both years before you . . . "a ..ahem" . . . thought of the concepts.
Please kind sir, could you offer up a measly reference..
..btw, I didn't "think of the concepts" then
- rather I specifically asked him about designing a narrow baffle phoenix. Also, one with more efficient drivers.
Last edited:
..btw, I didn't "think of the concepts" then
Why didn't you do it yourself?
It sounds to me like the new LX521 Linkwitz speaker is still in the development stage. He may at some point find that lobes of maximum addition are moving vertically where the two midrange drivers overlap in frequency, and decide he wants to reduce that with 4th order active filters, or not. In smaller rooms the lobing variations may be more audible (more ceiling bounce). Being too lazy to lay out a new circuit board does seem a bit lame to me. Maybe that's why I think it's still in development. I laid out ten boards in the last 3 weeks for the project I'm now doing (minimal compromise totally active stereo holographic soundbar with independent external side channel feeds).
I haven't heard the ugly looking LX521's, but the Orion's with the rear tweeters had some of the best sounding midrange and treble I've ever heard. The very high quality recording of the Portland Chamber Orchestra sounded incredible, as did other recordings. So much of what you're hearing is how the speaker interacts with the room. Small inaccuracies in the speaker system can be very overshadowed by the room acoustics interaction problems.
I haven't heard the ugly looking LX521's, but the Orion's with the rear tweeters had some of the best sounding midrange and treble I've ever heard. The very high quality recording of the Portland Chamber Orchestra sounded incredible, as did other recordings. So much of what you're hearing is how the speaker interacts with the room. Small inaccuracies in the speaker system can be very overshadowed by the room acoustics interaction problems.
Last edited: